Archers are rather integral to a balanced force, yet we force Lords of dense forest to do without them, or suffer the endless resupply of javelin. I also can't see the logic of it. Hunters use bows within forest. The Welsh were famous for ambush tactics firing their longbows at close range so I don't see how wide open places are a pre-requisite for realisng the utility of the weapon.

It would make atleast a bit more sense if say longbows couldnt be trained in dense forests but shortbows and crossbows could. Still it wouldn't make too much sense but more than it does now. Also with the whole dense forest and mountain limitation thing for stuff other than stables, mines, lumberyards etc is pretty silly. You wouldnt build a town in a really dense forest either, youd cut down trees first to make room, which means you can cut down trees to make room for an archery range aswell.

I think if we want to have restrictions on buildings other than Lumber Yard, Mine, Fishery, Irrigation Ditches and any other similar buildings then it should be less of a restriction and more of a limitation. Like with stables for example, they could maybe take far longer to construct in a deep forest because youd need to remove a lot of forest, maybe same with archery stuff. Or their training speed could slow down or speed up in different places. Possibly their production could change beyond resource availability and worker amount. So maybe a bowyer would produce far faster in a forest but stables would be far slower in mountains for example.

Though even then I feel like it would make sense to be able to build Mines and Fisheries every where, but for far less of an effect. Like maybe the mine could just give a little bit of metal that is in the province. And the Fishery would be for small lakes and rivers rather than the sea for example. Because even if the province is a plain in the middle of the continent waterbodies and metal still exist there but in lesser quantities maybe.

I think if we want to have restrictions on buildings other than Lumber Yard, Mine, Fishery, Irrigation Ditches and any other similar buildings then it should be less of a restriction and more of a limitation. Like with stables for example, they could maybe take far longer to construct in a deep forest because youd need to remove a lot of forest, maybe same with archery stuff. Or their training speed could slow down or speed up in different places. Possibly their production could change beyond resource availability and worker amount. So maybe a bowyer would produce far faster in a forest but stables would be far slower in mountains for example.

Though even then I feel like it would make sense to be able to build Mines and Fisheries every where, but for far less of an effect. Like maybe the mine could just give a little bit of metal that is in the province. And the Fishery would be for small lakes and rivers rather than the sea for example. Because even if the province is a plain in the middle of the continent waterbodies and metal still exist there but in lesser quantities maybe.

By my understanding, a fishery in M&F refers to dock-based naval fishing, like an industrial fishing sector effectively.

I get what you're trying to say, but the same applies to mines too, they're meant to be industrial buildings which can only be placed in certain areas. As for food, food production is assumed to be through various sources. Forests are poorer than grasslands because they don't have large amounts of agriculture, and in Ascalon in particular we referred to the woods and forest regions to be small forest villages or holds reliant upon some farming in the clearing, and the rest is based upon hunting for game and typical stream fishing etc.

Logged

22:34 - Roran Hawkins: Radovid's like you22:34 - Roran Hawkins: but then insane22:34 - Roran Hawkins: Dijkstra is like you

If people have better ideas on what buildings we should have and what their restrictions should be, I'm listening.

I know this is a game that appeals to a wide audience, and I know we've had players that play specifically to build things. Having a more interesting build tree with more interesting or more logical rules would appeal to that type of audience. So would player complexes, when that gets implemented (which will appeal very heavily to the players that want to make cities/areas/lands their own).

I have an idea that correlates with number 3 from my top ten.Let's imagine settlements having different number of available trainees of different types depending on settlement's biome. For example, a dense forest would have a lot of cottars (archers and light inf), fewer than usual carls (medium to heavy inf, armoured archers, light cav) and very few thanes (heavy cav, super heavy inf). Building restrictions also mean no mounted troops or longbows (I would also scrap halberds), so forest armies would mostly consist of skirmishers. I know it doesn't sounds very good, but overall I think the idea is interesting and I might think about it more later.

I was mostly just thinking region based bonuses to buildings aswell as soldiers coming from those. And also POI based bonuses to buildings and soldiers. Possibly these could be based on what the people in that area are mostly doing, and it could change if the people in that area start doing other things. Though that last bit should probably be only for POI bonuses and definetly not single region.